Bulk billing is dead. Not a good time to be in Australia if you are sick

[jasepom]

In what way will charging a co payment to those who can't or don't want to pay it reduce attendance at an ED?

 

You having a dog is your choice - him or her being healthy has no advantage to society. Having a healthy workforce does.

 

Yeah people pay into Medicare for insurance against illness. If you have a dog that's a luxury so you should insure it as you would your other possessions.

[docboat]

The fact of the matter is, however, that the health care system is just not affordable to government. As a business model, it has increasing costs with reducing revenue, and as such, it MUST fail. From a political perspective that is disastrous - it loses votes. So the governments are trying to prop up an unsustainable industry using more of the same methods which are already failing. It requires a new approach, and such an approach will not come from people who can only think in terms of the past.

 

If we, as a people, were to approach health as a responsibility, not a right, then we would stop smoking, stop or greatly reduce drinking, stop drugs, lose weight, exercise more, treat each other gently, reduce stress, drive carefully, sleep more, drink more water, eat unprocessed foods. We would cut pollution. We would look at "Wellness" and not absence of diagnosed disease as a parameter of health.

 

Attaining better health, we would then decide on the need to spend huge amounts of money on keeping elderly alive for that extra six months. We would decide to defund treating self-inflicted illnesses - drug overdoses, alcohol overdoses. We would limit legal attacks on healthcare practitioners, reducing the cost of providing healthcare by removing all the extraneous paperwork devised with the sole aim of reducing exposure to legal complaints, and freeing up time for patients to be cared.

 

Such an approach (and there is much more to be done) would result in a dramatic lowering of healthcare costs, would make the general population healthier (and wealthier) and allow funds to be freed up to support welfare for the genuinely needy.

 

But, waiting for the outcry now about to follow, the measures will be deeply unpopular for a majority of the population, hence politically unviable, hence the status quo. Hence the programmed failure of the current health service.

[HappyHeart]

The fact of the matter is, however, that the health care system is just not affordable to government. As a business model, it has increasing costs with reducing revenue, and as such, it MUST fail. From a political perspective that is disastrous - it loses votes. So the governments are trying to prop up an unsustainable industry using more of the same methods which are already failing. It requires a new approach, and such an approach will not come from people who can only think in terms of the past.

 

If we, as a people, were to approach health as a responsibility, not a right, then we would stop smoking, stop or greatly reduce drinking, stop drugs, lose weight, exercise more, treat each other gently, reduce stress, drive carefully, sleep more, drink more water, eat unprocessed foods. We would cut pollution. We would look at "Wellness" and not absence of diagnosed disease as a parameter of health.

 

Attaining better health, we would then decide on the need to spend huge amounts of money on keeping elderly alive for that extra six months. We would decide to defund treating self-inflicted illnesses - drug overdoses, alcohol overdoses. We would limit legal attacks on healthcare practitioners, reducing the cost of providing healthcare by removing all the extraneous paperwork devised with the sole aim of reducing exposure to legal complaints, and freeing up time for patients to be cared.

 

Such an approach (and there is much more to be done) would result in a dramatic lowering of healthcare costs, would make the general population healthier (and wealthier) and allow funds to be freed up to support welfare for the genuinely needy.

 

But, waiting for the outcry now about to follow, the measures will be deeply unpopular for a majority of the population, hence politically unviable, hence the status quo. Hence the programmed failure of the current health service.

 

Who defines 'self-inflicted' illnesses? Drug and alcohol abuse..related to mental health issues? Not worthy of public spending then?

[HappyHeart]

I've come into this one late..and without reading every post, sure this has already been said but I guess people take offence at being asked to pay again for a service that they have already 'paid' for indirectly...medicare levy/taxes etc....we pay through the nose in taxes etc for 'services' where does that money go? At the end of the day all governments are about the rich staying rich and the working man staying in his place...end of.

[docboat]

Who defines 'self-inflicted' illnesses? Drug and alcohol abuse..related to mental health issues? Not worthy of public spending then?

 

1. See last line

2. Any comments as to content?

[HappyHeart]

1. See last line

2. Any comments as to content?

No, you've lost me...explain please

[caramac]

1. See last line

2. Any comments as to content?

 

 

That doesn't answer the question. Are mental health illnesses self inflicted in your view?

[docboat]

No, you've lost me...explain please

 

The last line reads:

But, waiting for the outcry now about to follow, the measures will be deeply unpopular for a majority of the population, hence politically unviable, hence the status quo. Hence the programmed failure of the current health service.

And you have simply reinforced that the approach I outline is going to be distasteful for a majority of the population, even though it will, I believe. guarantee a health service into the future. The entrenched entitlement belief will be difficult to eradicate.

 

Point 2. Content. You wrote:

I've come into this one late..and without reading every post, sure this has already been said but I guess people take offence at being asked to pay again for a service that they have already 'paid' for indirectly...medicare levy/taxes etc....we pay through the nose in taxes etc for 'services' where does that money go? At the end of the day all governments are about the rich staying rich and the working man staying in his place...end of.

The service being paid for is collapsing. It is unsustainable. More of the same will not save it. Chuck more money at it, and it will still fail, just taking more of our money with it. You ask where the money goes, and it goes mostly in wastage and inefficiency. It needs a new system, new thinking. But you finish by seeking a simple blame. Government. They. Someone else has to be responsible just not me. And government is as good a body to blame as anyone else. Oh yes - also the rich. And the working man (implying the rich do not work ... more class-belief entrenched bias) is going to cop the fallout. This thinking merely serves to support a set of beliefs as we plunge headlong into the predictable demise of the service. My initial comments included this paragraph:

 

If we, as a people, were to approach health as a responsibility, not a right, then we would stop smoking, stop or greatly reduce drinking, stop drugs, lose weight, exercise more, treat each other gently, reduce stress, drive carefully, sleep more, drink more water, eat unprocessed foods. We would cut pollution. We would look at "Wellness" and not absence of diagnosed disease as a parameter of health.

Books could be written on the topic, and already have. What we need is a solution to a problem that is being perpetuated into the inevitable demise. The current budget from Tony Abbott is poor, but it does seek to bring about a seachange, to alter the way we as a society act, think. Rather than dig in and reinforce beliefs that lead to ruin, why not take the opportunity to reflect as a society on what might eventually result in improvement?

[HappyHeart]

Docboat...who are the policy makers who decide where to spend?

 

for the record I didn't 'reinforce' anything, I challenged your 'view' or assumption that spending on drug/alcohol abuse was an inefficient use of funds...I asked if spending on mental health issues was justifiable..is it?

Edited May 26, 2014 by HappyHeart

[caramac]

It is a lovely utopian idea, I can see that, but, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it would take a huge amount of investment now - in education and early intervention, and I can't see any government being willing to put in that kind of investment. They think in terms of election to the next.

 

I completely agree with you about reducing the paperwork, it's ridiculous, but I do think people should have some recourse for action in cases of malpractice. How do we ensure patients and healthcare staff are protected?

[docboat]

That doesn't answer the question. Are mental health illnesses self inflicted in your view?

 

Drug use - and overdoses - is not per se a mental illness. Drug use may lead to mental illness, so some are certainly self-inflicted in that sense

Alcohol abuse per se is not a mental illness - or do you think the masses drunk and attending on fights in Northbridge and ED departments the country over are all mentally ill? Alcohol abuse may certainly lead to mental illness, so in that sense some mental illness is self-inflicted.

 

Not every drug overdose is a result of mental illness, is it? Not every drunk in ED is mentally ill, right? Or are you suggesting that every drunk is suffering a mental illness?

[HappyHeart]

Drug use - and overdoses - is not per se a mental illness. Drug use may lead to mental illness, so some are certainly self-inflicted in that sense

Alcohol abuse per se is not a mental illness - or do you think the masses drunk and attending on fights in Northbridge and ED departments the country over are all mentally ill? Alcohol abuse may certainly lead to mental illness, so in that sense some mental illness is self-inflicted.

 

Not every drug overdose is a result of mental illness, is it? Not every drunk in ED is mentally ill, right? Or are you suggesting that every drunk is suffering a mental illness?

 

Well I did think that alcoholism was classed as a psychiatric disorder..yes...a mental health issue..addiction...are you a Doctor?? You sure?

[docboat]

Docboat...who are the policy makers who decide where to spend?

 

for the record I didn't 'reinforce' anything, I challenged your 'view' or assumption that spending on drug/alcohol abuse was an inefficient use of funds...I asked if spending on mental health issues was justifiable..is it?

 

mmm ... maybe simple answers are needed here

 

1. Policy makers? There are none. I put out some thoughts for mature cogitation. Perhaps I overestimate the audience?

2. Reinforce - you jump right in with sterotype, and manifest the response I expected as outlined in the last sentence. So yes, you do reinforce.

3. Challenge - I have yet to see any thoughts expressed as to the content of my first piece. I see you jump on the totem of mental illness in the hope that the whole argument collapses. If you read the first piece, you do not see an argument for defunding treatment of mental illness. But we should perhaps divert some funding from health and direct it to education.

[caramac]

Drug use - and overdoses - is not per se a mental illness. Drug use may lead to mental illness, so some are certainly self-inflicted in that sense

Alcohol abuse per se is not a mental illness - or do you think the masses drunk and attending on fights in Northbridge and ED departments the country over are all mentally ill? Alcohol abuse may certainly lead to mental illness, so in that sense some mental illness is self-inflicted.

 

Not every drug overdose is a result of mental illness, is it? Not every drunk in ED is mentally ill, right? Or are you suggesting that every drunk is suffering a mental illness?

 

 

I know they're not, but many people with mental illnesses also have drug and alcohol issues. Your post didn't clarify. How do you decide which ones are worthy of funded treatment when they arrive in ED?

[HappyHeart]

Luckily...we do live in a society where those who self harm are helped..not left to rot in the gutter ..despite their previous mental health history or lack of one...thankfully we treat first rather than assess mental health status while determining the merits of treatment...

[docboat]

Well I did think that alcoholism was classed as a psychiatric disorder..yes...a mental health issue..addiction...are you a Doctor?? You sure?

 

Oh dear.

 

Alcoholism is very different to alcohol abuse. Are you sure you are mentally alert?

[HappyHeart]

I know they're not, but many people with mental illnesses also have drug and alcohol issues. Your post didn't clarify. How do you decide which ones are worthy of funded treatment when they arrive in ED?

 

My point exactly...

[HappyHeart]

Oh dear.

 

Alcoholism is very different to alcohol abuse. Are you sure you are mentally alert?

Wow....

[Sammy1]

Wow....

 

 

Is he sure he is a Doctor? That would be my reply too, Happy Heart.

[caramac]

Oh dear.

 

Alcoholism is very different to alcohol abuse. Are you sure you are mentally alert?

 

 

How rude.

[docboat]

how true

[caramac]

mmm ... maybe simple answers are needed here

 

1. Policy makers? There are none. I put out some thoughts for mature cogitation. Perhaps I overestimate the audience?

2. Reinforce - you jump right in with sterotype, and manifest the response I expected as outlined in the last sentence. So yes, you do reinforce.

3. Challenge - I have yet to see any thoughts expressed as to the content of my first piece. I see you jump on the totem of mental illness in the hope that the whole argument collapses. If you read the first piece, you do not see an argument for defunding treatment of mental illness. But we should perhaps divert some funding from health and direct it to education.

 

 

I hope you don't always resort to arrogance when you're challenged on something. I wonder, are you a surgeon?

[docboat]

when I get an idiotic answer, and a rude one at that, downright insulting, I respond harshly. I have made some comments that bear close examination, and I see low level pushback and sheer ignorance. If you cannot take a robust response, rethink the answers

[docboat]

ad hominem - as expected. Carry on

[HappyHeart]

when I get an idiotic answer, and a rude one at that, downright insulting, I respond harshly. I have made some comments that bear close examination, and I see low level pushback and sheer ignorance. If you cannot take a robust response, rethink the answers

 

 

I see you excelled yourself in offending members yesterday...robust response?? Idiotic? Insulting? Are you getting confused between the answers you are getting and the ones you are putting out??